SBI PO Free Mock Test for Prelims – IV

A train overtakes two persons walking along a railway track. The first one walks at 6 km/hr. The other one walks at 7.2 km/hr. The train overtook them in 9 seconds and 9.5 seconds respectively. What is the speed of the train if both the persons are walking in the same direction as that of the train? (in km/hr)

A and B can do a piece of work in 20 days while B and C can do the same piece of work in 30 days and C and A in 24 days. They all worked together for 10 days when C and A left the job. How many more days will B take to finish the work?

If the average marks of three batches of 42, 45 and 50 students respectively is 55, 46 and 54, then find the average marks of all the students.

Manisha’s father was 42 years of age when she was born while her mother was 38 years old when her brother 3 years younger than her was born. What is the difference between the ages of her parents?

In how many different ways can the letters of the word ‘MATHEMATICS’ be arranged so that vowels always come together?

Pulses worth Rs. 140 per kg and Rs. 155 per kg was mixed with a third variety in the ratio 1 : 1 : 2. If the mixture is worth Rs. 167.5 per kg, the price of the third variety per kg will be

Excluding stoppages, the speed of a bus is 81 km/h, and including stoppages, it is 54 km/h. For how many minutes does the bus stop per hour?

Rangesh started a hardware shop by investing Rs. 80,000. After six months, Sanjay joined him with a capital of Rs. 90,000. After 3 years, they earned a profit of Rs. 21,700. What was Sanjay’s share in the profit?

The diagonal of a rectangle is √61 cm and its area is 30 sq.cm. The perimeter of the rectangle will be

A bag contains 9 yellow and 10 orange balls. One ball is drawn at random. What is the probability that the ball drawn is yellow?

Directions (Q. 11-15): In the given questions two equations numbered I and II are given. You have to solve both the equations and give answer.

I. 4x²+x-3=0    II. 6y²-5y+1=0

I. 6x²+9x+3=0    II. 8y²-13y+5=0

 I. √x+7 = √169 – √49

II. y²+117 = 558

I. 5x²+38x+48=0    II. 8y²+20y+12=0

I. 12x²+29x+14=0       II. 12y²-22y+8=0

Directions (Q. 16-20): What value should come in place of question mark (?) in the following number series?

2100  840  336  ?  53.76  21.504

352  432  ?  610  708  812

34  41  62  97  ?  209

500  499  ?  464  400  275

1328  997  ?  509  340  213

Directions (Q. 21-25):  What approximate value should come in place of question mark (?) in the following questions?

380     ÷   39.998  x  189.08    =  ? x 5

20.012         560          139.99

(39.99)² – (11.08)² – (8)² = ?

5999 ÷ 60.003 x 84.996 = ? x 24.999

8888 ÷ 88 ÷ 8 = ? + 5

³√59320 + 5 = ?

Direction: (Q. 26-30): The table shows the expenditure of a company (in lakh rupees) per annum over the given years.

 The total amount of Interest on loans paid by the company during the given period is approximately what percent of the total amount of Salary paid during this period?

What is the average amount of Taxes per year which the company has to pay over the given years? (rupees in lakh)

The total expenditure on all these items in 2011 was approximately what percent of the total expenditure in 2015?

What is the total expenditure of company over these items during the year 2013? ( rupees in lakh)

What is the ratio of the expenditure on Taxes for the year 2015 to the total expenditure on Bonuses for all the years?

Amount invested in Raw materials (rupees in lakh)

Value of sales of Finished goods (rupees in lakh)

What was the difference between the average amount invested in Raw materials during the given years and the average value of sales of Finished goods during this period?

Amount invested in Raw materials (rupees in lakh)

Value of sales of Finished goods (rupees in lakh)

What is the difference between the maximum and the minimum difference between the amount invested in Raw materials and the value of sales of Finished goods during the given years?

Amount invested in Raw materials (rupees in lakh)

Value of sales of Finished goods (rupees in lakh)

The value of sales of Finished goods in 2013 was approximately what percent of the amount invested in Raw materials in the year 2010, 2012 and 2015 together?

Amount invested in Raw materials (rupees in lakh)

Value of sales of Finished goods (rupees in lakh)

In which year has there been maximum percentage increase in the amount invested in Raw materials as compared to the previous year?

Amount invested in Raw materials (rupees in lakh)

Value of sales of Finished goods (rupees in lakh)

What is the ratio of amount invested in Raw materials in 2010, 2011 and 2014 together to that of the value of sales of Finished goods in 2011, 2013 and 2015 together?

Directions (Q. 36-38): In these questions, relationship between different elements is shown in the statements. These statements are followed by two conclusions. Mark answer.

Statements: X>=P>T=N,  M=L>N,  Y<=S<N

Conclusions:  I) X>Y, II) M>S

Statements: S>=P<=T=X<L, A>=T, X <=B

Conclusions:  I) S>X  II) L>=B

Statements: A>P =T<=S, D<L<=N=T

Conclusions:  I) A>S II) A<=S

If   The statement  L>= T =S< P, O=N<S, Y=X>=P  IS true then which of the following conclusions is /are true correct?

Which of the following symbols should replace the question mark (?) in the given expression in order to make  P <T and O>= P definitely true?

T=> S ? P = L <= Q ? O

Directions (41-45): Study the given information carefully to answer the given question.

T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z are seven different boxes of different colours i.e. GREY, BLUE, RED, MAROON, LIME, PURPLE  and MAGENTA  but not necessarily in the same order. Box which is of GREY colour is immediately above T. There are only two box between W and the box which is of GREY  colour. Box which is of RED  colour is above W but not immediately above W. Only three box are between V and the box which is of RED colour. The box which is of MAGENTA colour is immediately above V. The box which is of MAROON colour is immediately above the box Z. Only one box is there between U and X. Box U is above X. Neither box U nor T is of LIME colour. T is not of BLUE colour.

How many box is/are there between W and Z?

T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z are seven different boxes of different colours i.e. GREY, BLUE, RED, MAROON, LIME, PURPLE  and MAGENTA  but not necessarily in the same order. Box which is of GREY colour is immediately above T. There are only two box between W and the box which is of GREY  colour. Box which is of RED  colour is above W but not immediately above W. Only three box are between V and the box which is of RED colour. The box which is of MAGENTA colour is immediately above V. The box which is of MAROON colour is immediately above the box Z. Only one box is there between U and X. Box U is above X. Neither box U nor T is of LIME colour. T is not of BLUE colour.

What is the colour of ‘Y’?

T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z are seven different boxes of different colours i.e. GREY, BLUE, RED, MAROON, LIME, PURPLE  and MAGENTA  but not necessarily in the same order. Box which is of GREY colour is immediately above T. There are only two box between W and the box which is of GREY  colour. Box which is of RED  colour is above W but not immediately above W. Only three box are between V and the box which is of RED colour. The box which is of MAGENTA colour is immediately above V. The box which is of MAROON colour is immediately above the box Z. Only one box is there between U and X. Box U is above X. Neither box U nor T is of LIME colour. T is not of BLUE colour.

Find the pair of colour and boxes which is not correct?

T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z are seven different boxes of different colours i.e. GREY, BLUE, RED, MAROON, LIME, PURPLE  and MAGENTA  but not necessarily in the same order. Box which is of GREY colour is immediately above T. There are only two box between W and the box which is of GREY  colour. Box which is of RED  colour is above W but not immediately above W. Only three box are between V and the box which is of RED colour. The box which is of MAGENTA colour is immediately above V. The box which is of MAROON colour is immediately above the box Z. Only one box is there between U and X. Box U is above X. Neither box U nor T is of LIME colour. T is not of BLUE colour.

Which of the following condition is correct regarding yellow colour with respect to x?

T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z are seven different boxes of different colours i.e. GREY, BLUE, RED, MAROON, LIME, PURPLE  and MAGENTA  but not necessarily in the same order. Box which is of GREY colour is immediately above T. There are only two box between W and the box which is of GREY  colour. Box which is of RED  colour is above W but not immediately above W. Only three box are between V and the box which is of RED colour. The box which is of MAGENTA colour is immediately above V. The box which is of MAROON colour is immediately above the box Z. Only one box is there between U and X. Box U is above X. Neither box U nor T is of LIME colour. T is not of BLUE colour.

Which of the following colour is belong to ‘T’?

Directions (Q. 46-47): Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given below:

In a family there are three fathers, two brothers, two sisters, one husband, one wife, two brothers-in-law, two daughters, three sons, three cousins, two nephews, one grandfather and a niece.

What is the minimum possible number of persons in the family?

Three fathers (G, A, C), two brothers (A and E), two sisters (B and F), one husband (C), one wife (B), two brothers in law (A and C), two daughters (B and F), three sons (A, D and E), three cousins (D, E and F), two nephews (D and E), one grandfather (G) and one niece (F)

How many female members are there in the family ?

Directions (48-52) : In each question below are given three statements followed by two conclusions numbered I and II. You have to take the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance with commonly known facts. Read all the conclusions and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the given statements, disregarding commonly known facts. Give answer.

(48-49) Statements:

Some goals are ranks.

No goal is a game.

All games are players.

Conclusions :

I)Some ranks are definitely not games.

II)All ranks being goals is a possibility.

Statements:

Some goals are ranks.

No goal is a game.

All games are players

Conclusions :

I)All players are games.

II)At least some players are not goals.

(50-51) Statements :

All files are documents.

Some dictionary are documents.

No picture is a file.

Conclusions :

I.)All documents being dictionary is a

possibility.

II)Some documents are files.

Statements :

All files are documents.

Some dictionary are documents.

No picture is a file.

Conclusions :

I)Some documents are pictures.

II) All files are definitely not picture.

Statements :

All books are pens.

No pen is a copy.

No paper is a book.

Conclusions :

I)No pen is a paper.

II)No copy is a book.

Directions (53-57) : Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given below.

Hewitt, Suarez, Sreejesh, Jordan, Richards, Giba, Sampras and Lin Dan are eight employees of an organization working in three departments, viz Personnel, Administration and Marketing with not more than three of them in any department. Each of them has a different choice of sports from football, cricket, volleyball, badminton, lawn tennis, basketball, hockey and table tennis, not necessarily in the same order. Jordan works in Administration and does not like either football or cricket. Giba works in Personnel with only Hewitt, who likes table tennis. Richards and Lin Dan do not work in the same department as Jordan.  Sreejes likes hockey and does not work in Marketing. Sampras does not work in Administration and does not like either cricket or badminton. One of those who work in Administration likes football. The one who likes volleyball works in Personnel. None of those who work in Administration likes either badminton or lawn tennis. Lin Dan does not like cricket.

Which of the following groups of employees work in Administration department

Hewitt, Suarez, Sreejesh, Jordan, Richards, Giba, Sampras and Lin Dan are eight employees of an organization working in three departments, viz Personnel, Administration and Marketing with not more than three of them in any department. Each of them has a different choice of sports from football, cricket, volleyball, badminton, lawn tennis, basketball, hockey and table tennis, not necessarily in the same order. Jordan works in Administration and does not like either football or cricket. Giba works in Personnel with only Hewitt, who likes table tennis. Richards and Lin Dan do not work in the same department as Jordan.  Sreejes likes hockey and does not work in Marketing. Sampras does not work in Administration and does not like either cricket or badminton. One of those who work in Administration likes football. The one who likes volleyball works in Personnel. None of those who work in Administration likes either badminton or lawn tennis. Lin Dan does not like cricket.

In which department does Richards work?

Hewitt, Suarez, Sreejesh, Jordan, Richards, Giba, Sampras and Lin Dan are eight employees of an organization working in three departments, viz Personnel, Administration and Marketing with not more than three of them in any department. Each of them has a different choice of sports from football, cricket, volleyball, badminton, lawn tennis, basketball, hockey and table tennis, not necessarily in the same order. Jordan works in Administration and does not like either football or cricket. Giba works in Personnel with only Hewitt, who likes table tennis. Richards and Lin Dan do not work in the same department as Jordan.  Sreejes likes hockey and does not work in Marketing. Sampras does not work in Administration and does not like either cricket or badminton. One of those who work in Administration likes football. The one who likes volleyball works in Personnel. None of those who work in Administration likes either badminton or lawn tennis. Lin Dan does not like cricket.

Which of the following combinations of employee department-favourite sport is correct ?

Hewitt, Suarez, Sreejesh, Jordan, Richards, Giba, Sampras and Lin Dan are eight employees of an organization working in three departments, viz Personnel, Administration and Marketing with not more than three of them in any department. Each of them has a different choice of sports from football, cricket, volleyball, badminton, lawn tennis, basketball, hockey and table tennis, not necessarily in the same order. Jordan works in Administration and does not like either football or cricket. Giba works in Personnel with only Hewitt, who likes table tennis. Richards and Lin Dan do not work in the same department as Jordan.  Sreejes likes hockey and does not work in Marketing. Sampras does not work in Administration and does not like either cricket or badminton. One of those who work in Administration likes football. The one who likes volleyball works in Personnel. None of those who work in Administration likes either badminton or lawn tennis. Lin Dan does not like cricket.

What is Richards’s favourite sport?

Hewitt, Suarez, Sreejesh, Jordan, Richards, Giba, Sampras and Lin Dan are eight employees of an organization working in three departments, viz Personnel, Administration and Marketing with not more than three of them in any department. Each of them has a different choice of sports from football, cricket, volleyball, badminton, lawn tennis, basketball, hockey and table tennis, not necessarily in the same order. Jordan works in Administration and does not like either football or cricket. Giba works in Personnel with only Hewitt, who likes table tennis. Richards and Lin Dan do not work in the same department as Jordan.  Sreejes likes hockey and does not work in Marketing. Sampras does not work in Administration and does not like either cricket or badminton. One of those who work in Administration likes football. The one who likes volleyball works in Personnel. None of those who work in Administration likes either badminton or lawn tennis. Lin Dan does not like cricket.

What is Sampras’s favourite sport?

Directions (58-62) : In the following questions, the symbols @, $, ©, # and are used with the following meaning as illustrated below:

‘P $ Q’ means ‘P is not smaller than Q’.

‘P @ Q’ means ‘P is neither smaller than nor equal to Q’.

‘P # Q’ means ‘P is neither greater than nor equal to Q’.

‘P Q’ means ‘P is neither greater than nor smaller than Q’.

‘P © Q’ means ‘P is not greater than Q’. 

Now in each of the following questions assuming the given statements to be true, find which of the four conclusion I, II, III and IV given below them is/are definitely true and give your answer accordingly.

Statements :

H @ T, T # F, F E, E © V

Conclusions :

I)V $ F

II)E @ T

III)H @ V

IV) T # V

‘P $ Q’ means ‘P is not smaller than Q’.

‘P @ Q’ means ‘P is neither smaller than nor equal to Q’.

‘P # Q’ means ‘P is neither greater than nor equal to Q’.

‘P Q’ means ‘P is neither greater than nor smaller than Q’.

‘P © Q’ means ‘P is not greater than Q’.

Statements :

D # R, R © K, K @ F, F $ J

Conclusions :

I)J # R

II) J # K

III)R # F

IV)K @ D

‘P $ Q’ means ‘P is not smaller than Q’.

‘P @ Q’ means ‘P is neither smaller than nor equal to Q’.

‘P # Q’ means ‘P is neither greater than nor equal to Q’.

‘P Q’ means ‘P is neither greater than nor smaller than Q’.

‘P © Q’ means ‘P is not greater than Q’.

Statements :

N B, B $ W, W # H, H © M

Conclusions :

I)M @ W

II)H @ N

III)W N

IV)W # N

‘P $ Q’ means ‘P is not smaller than Q’.

‘P @ Q’ means ‘P is neither smaller than nor equal to Q’.

‘P # Q’ means ‘P is neither greater than nor equal to Q’.

‘P Q’ means ‘P is neither greater than nor smaller than Q’.

‘P © Q’ means ‘P is not greater than Q’.

Statements :

R © D, D $ J, J # M, M @ K

Conclusions :

I)K # J

II)D @ M

III)R # M

IV)D @ K

‘P $ Q’ means ‘P is not smaller than Q’.

‘P @ Q’ means ‘P is neither smaller than nor equal to Q’.

‘P # Q’ means ‘P is neither greater than nor equal to Q’.

‘P Q’ means ‘P is neither greater than nor smaller than Q’.

‘P © Q’ means ‘P is not greater than Q’.

Statements :

M $ K, K @ N, N © R, R # W

Conclusions :

I)W @ K

II)M $ R

III)K @ W

IV)M @ N

Directions (63-67) : Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given below.

A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H are sitting around a circular table. Some of them are not facing the centre. The immediate neighbors of A are facing the same direction. A is not an immediate neighbor of either G or B, but is on the immediate left of H, who is facing the same direction as B is facing. E sits third to the right of C. G sits third to the right of B and both are facing opposite directions. A sits second to the left of F and both are not facing the centre. H sits second to the left of D.

Who among the following is the immediate neighbor of F and C ?

A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H are sitting around a circular table. Some of them are not facing the centre. The immediate neighbors of A are facing the same direction. A is not an immediate neighbor of either G or B, but is on the immediate left of H, who is facing the same direction as B is facing. E sits third to the right of C. G sits third to the right of B and both are facing opposite directions. A sits second to the left of F and both are not facing the centre. H sits second to the left of D.

In which of the following groups are both the persons not facing the centre ?

A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H are sitting around a circular table. Some of them are not facing the centre. The immediate neighbors of A are facing the same direction. A is not an immediate neighbor of either G or B, but is on the immediate left of H, who is facing the same direction as B is facing. E sits third to the right of C. G sits third to the right of B and both are facing opposite directions. A sits second to the left of F and both are not facing the centre. H sits second to the left of D.

Who among the following sits opposite E ? 

A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H are sitting around a circular table. Some of them are not facing the centre. The immediate neighbors of A are facing the same direction. A is not an immediate neighbor of either G or B, but is on the immediate left of H, who is facing the same direction as B is facing. E sits third to the right of C. G sits third to the right of B and both are facing opposite directions. A sits second to the left of F and both are not facing the centre. H sits second to the left of D.

How many persons are not facing the centre ?

A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H are sitting around a circular table. Some of them are not facing the centre. The immediate neighbors of A are facing the same direction. A is not an immediate neighbor of either G or B, but is on the immediate left of H, who is facing the same direction as B is facing. E sits third to the right of C. G sits third to the right of B and both are facing opposite directions. A sits second to the left of F and both are not facing the centre. H sits second to the left of D.

How many persons are there between F and B ?

Directions (Q. 68): Study the following information carefully and answer the question given below it.

There are seven members, 4 men and 3 women in a family. They are L, M, N, O, P, Q and R. M is a businessman and father of P. Q is the paternal grandfather of P and is a Doctor. N, who is a housewife, is daughter-in-law of O. R is P’s paternal uncle and is an advocate. There is one Architect, one Pilot and one Journalist in the family. N is not P’s mother. O is not married to M. There are three married couples in the family.

If Q is the grandfather of a Pilot, what is the profession of pilot’s mother ?

Directions (Q. 69-70): Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given below:

In a certain code ‘all are going market’ is written as ‘sit ha pit zo’,

‘market is too far’ is written as ‘ch fa jo zo’,

 ‘he is not going’ is written as ‘pit ch la na’ and

‘not far for all’ is written as ‘jo na ha sa’.

What is the code for ‘going’ ?

In a certain code ‘all are going market’ is written as ‘sit ha pit zo’,

‘market is too far’ is written as ‘ch fa jo zo’,

 ‘he is not going’ is written as ‘pit ch la na’ and

‘not far for all’ is written as ‘jo na ha sa’.

What does ‘zo’ stand for?

Directions (Q. 71-75): Rearrange the following six sentences (A), (B), (C), (D),(E) and (F) in the proper sequence to form a meaningful paragraph; then answer the questions given below them—

(A) At times, managers are called upon to take ruthless decisions in the long-term interests of the organization.

(B) Despite the passage of time, a large number of conflicts continue to remain alive, because the wronged parties, in reality or in imagination, wish to take revenge upon each other, thus creating a vicious circle.

(C) People hurt others, at times knowingly, to teach them a lesson and at other times because they lack correct understanding of the other person’s stand.

(D) The delegation of any power to any person is never absolute.

(E) Power is misused; its effects can last only for a while, since employees are bound to confront it someday.

(F) Every ruthless decision will be accepted easily if the situation at the moment of committing the act is objectively analyzed, shared openly and discussed rationally

Which of the following should be FIRST sentence?

(A) At times, managers are called upon to take ruthless decisions in the long-term interests of the organization.

(B) Despite the passage of time, a large number of conflicts continue to remain alive, because the wronged parties, in reality or in imagination, wish to take revenge upon each other, thus creating a vicious circle.

(C) People hurt others, at times knowingly, to teach them a lesson and at other times because they lack correct understanding of the other person’s stand.

(D) The delegation of any power to any person is never absolute.

(E) Power is misused; its effects can last only for a while, since employees are bound to confront it someday.

(F) Every ruthless decision will be accepted easily if the situation at the moment of committing the act is objectively analyzed, shared openly and discussed rationally

Which of the following should be THIRD sentence?

(A) At times, managers are called upon to take ruthless decisions in the long-term interests of the organization.

(B) Despite the passage of time, a large number of conflicts continue to remain alive, because the wronged parties, in reality or in imagination, wish to take revenge upon each other, thus creating a vicious circle.

(C) People hurt others, at times knowingly, to teach them a lesson and at other times because they lack correct understanding of the other person’s stand.

(D) The delegation of any power to any person is never absolute.

(E) Power is misused; its effects can last only for a while, since employees are bound to confront it someday.

(F) Every ruthless decision will be accepted easily if the situation at the moment of committing the act is objectively analyzed, shared openly and discussed rationally

Which of the following should be FIFTH sentence?

(A) At times, managers are called upon to take ruthless decisions in the long-term interests of the organization.

(B) Despite the passage of time, a large number of conflicts continue to remain alive, because the wronged parties, in reality or in imagination, wish to take revenge upon each other, thus creating a vicious circle.

(C) People hurt others, at times knowingly, to teach them a lesson and at other times because they lack correct understanding of the other person’s stand.

(D) The delegation of any power to any person is never absolute.

(E) Power is misused; its effects can last only for a while, since employees are bound to confront it someday.

(F) Every ruthless decision will be accepted easily if the situation at the moment of committing the act is objectively analyzed, shared openly and discussed rationally

Which of the following should be the LAST sentence?

(A) At times, managers are called upon to take ruthless decisions in the long-term interests of the organization.

(B) Despite the passage of time, a large number of conflicts continue to remain alive, because the wronged parties, in reality or in imagination, wish to take revenge upon each other, thus creating a vicious circle.

(C) People hurt others, at times knowingly, to teach them a lesson and at other times because they lack correct understanding of the other person’s stand.

(D) The delegation of any power to any person is never absolute.

(E) Power is misused; its effects can last only for a while, since employees are bound to confront it someday.

(F) Every ruthless decision will be accepted easily if the situation at the moment of committing the act is objectively analyzed, shared openly and discussed rationally

Which of the following should be the SECOND sentence?

Directions (Q.76-82):  In the given passage, there are blanks, each of which has been numbered. Against each five words are suggested, one of which fits the blank appropriately. Find the appropriate word in each case.

A TEXAS high school student and his mother recently called attention to a curious line in a geography textbook: a description of the Atlantic slave trade as bringing “millions of workers” to plantations in the American South. McGraw-Hill Education, the publisher of the textbook, has since (76) that the term “workers” was a misnomer. The company’s chief executive also promised to revise the textbook so that its digital version as well as its next edition would more accurately describe the forced migration and enslavement of Africans. In the meantime, the company is also (77) to send stickers to cover the passage. But it will take more than that to fix the way slavery is taught in Texas textbooks. In 2010, the Texas Board of Education approved a social studies (78) that promote capitalism and Republican political philosophies. The curriculum guidelines prompted many concerns, including that new textbooks would (79) slavery as the cause of the Civil War. This fall, five million public school students in Texas began using the textbooks based on the new (80). And some of these books distort history not through word choices but through a tool we often think of as apolitical: grammar. In September, Bobby Finger of the website Jezebel obtained and published some excerpts from the new books, showing much of what is objectionable about their content. The books play down the horror of slavery and even seem to claim that it had an upside. This (81) took the form of a distinctive African-American culture, in which family was central, Christianity provided “hope”, folk tales expressed “joy” and (82) dances were important social events. But it is not only the substance of the passages that is a probe. It is also their form. The writers’ decisions about how to construct sentences, about what the subject of the sentence will be, about whether the verb will be active or passive, shape the message that slavery was not all that bad.

_________

A TEXAS high school student and his mother recently called attention to a curious line in a geography textbook: a description of the Atlantic slave trade as bringing “millions of workers” to plantations in the American South. McGraw-Hill Education, the publisher of the textbook, has since (76) that the term “workers” was a misnomer. The company’s chief executive also promised to revise the textbook so that its digital version as well as its next edition would more accurately describe the forced migration and enslavement of Africans. In the meantime, the company is also (77) to send stickers to cover the passage. But it will take more than that to fix the way slavery is taught in Texas textbooks. In 2010, the Texas Board of Education approved a social studies (78) that promote capitalism and Republican political philosophies. The curriculum guidelines prompted many concerns, including that new textbooks would (79) slavery as the cause of the Civil War. This fall, five million public school students in Texas began using the textbooks based on the new (80). And some of these books distort history not through word choices but through a tool we often think of as apolitical: grammar. In September, Bobby Finger of the website Jezebel obtained and published some excerpts from the new books, showing much of what is objectionable about their content. The books play down the horror of slavery and even seem to claim that it had an upside. This (81) took the form of a distinctive African-American culture, in which family was central, Christianity provided “hope”, folk tales expressed “joy” and (82) dances were important social events. But it is not only the substance of the passages that is a probe. It is also their form. The writers’ decisions about how to construct sentences, about what the subject of the sentence will be, about whether the verb will be active or passive, shape the message that slavery was not all that bad.

__________

A TEXAS high school student and his mother recently called attention to a curious line in a geography textbook: a description of the Atlantic slave trade as bringing “millions of workers” to plantations in the American South. McGraw-Hill Education, the publisher of the textbook, has since (76) that the term “workers” was a misnomer. The company’s chief executive also promised to revise the textbook so that its digital version as well as its next edition would more accurately describe the forced migration and enslavement of Africans. In the meantime, the company is also (77) to send stickers to cover the passage. But it will take more than that to fix the way slavery is taught in Texas textbooks. In 2010, the Texas Board of Education approved a social studies (78) that promote capitalism and Republican political philosophies. The curriculum guidelines prompted many concerns, including that new textbooks would (79) slavery as the cause of the Civil War. This fall, five million public school students in Texas began using the textbooks based on the new (80). And some of these books distort history not through word choices but through a tool we often think of as apolitical: grammar. In September, Bobby Finger of the website Jezebel obtained and published some excerpts from the new books, showing much of what is objectionable about their content. The books play down the horror of slavery and even seem to claim that it had an upside. This (81) took the form of a distinctive African-American culture, in which family was central, Christianity provided “hope”, folk tales expressed “joy” and (82) dances were important social events. But it is not only the substance of the passages that is a probe. It is also their form. The writers’ decisions about how to construct sentences, about what the subject of the sentence will be, about whether the verb will be active or passive, shape the message that slavery was not all that bad.

___________

A TEXAS high school student and his mother recently called attention to a curious line in a geography textbook: a description of the Atlantic slave trade as bringing “millions of workers” to plantations in the American South. McGraw-Hill Education, the publisher of the textbook, has since (76) that the term “workers” was a misnomer. The company’s chief executive also promised to revise the textbook so that its digital version as well as its next edition would more accurately describe the forced migration and enslavement of Africans. In the meantime, the company is also (77) to send stickers to cover the passage. But it will take more than that to fix the way slavery is taught in Texas textbooks. In 2010, the Texas Board of Education approved a social studies (78) that promote capitalism and Republican political philosophies. The curriculum guidelines prompted many concerns, including that new textbooks would (79) slavery as the cause of the Civil War. This fall, five million public school students in Texas began using the textbooks based on the new (80). And some of these books distort history not through word choices but through a tool we often think of as apolitical: grammar. In September, Bobby Finger of the website Jezebel obtained and published some excerpts from the new books, showing much of what is objectionable about their content. The books play down the horror of slavery and even seem to claim that it had an upside. This (81) took the form of a distinctive African-American culture, in which family was central, Christianity provided “hope”, folk tales expressed “joy” and (82) dances were important social events. But it is not only the substance of the passages that is a probe. It is also their form. The writers’ decisions about how to construct sentences, about what the subject of the sentence will be, about whether the verb will be active or passive, shape the message that slavery was not all that bad.

__________

A TEXAS high school student and his mother recently called attention to a curious line in a geography textbook: a description of the Atlantic slave trade as bringing “millions of workers” to plantations in the American South. McGraw-Hill Education, the publisher of the textbook, has since (76) that the term “workers” was a misnomer. The company’s chief executive also promised to revise the textbook so that its digital version as well as its next edition would more accurately describe the forced migration and enslavement of Africans. In the meantime, the company is also (77) to send stickers to cover the passage. But it will take more than that to fix the way slavery is taught in Texas textbooks. In 2010, the Texas Board of Education approved a social studies (78) that promote capitalism and Republican political philosophies. The curriculum guidelines prompted many concerns, including that new textbooks would (79) slavery as the cause of the Civil War. This fall, five million public school students in Texas began using the textbooks based on the new (80). And some of these books distort history not through word choices but through a tool we often think of as apolitical: grammar. In September, Bobby Finger of the website Jezebel obtained and published some excerpts from the new books, showing much of what is objectionable about their content. The books play down the horror of slavery and even seem to claim that it had an upside. This (81) took the form of a distinctive African-American culture, in which family was central, Christianity provided “hope”, folk tales expressed “joy” and (82) dances were important social events. But it is not only the substance of the passages that is a probe. It is also their form. The writers’ decisions about how to construct sentences, about what the subject of the sentence will be, about whether the verb will be active or passive, shape the message that slavery was not all that bad.

___________

A TEXAS high school student and his mother recently called attention to a curious line in a geography textbook: a description of the Atlantic slave trade as bringing “millions of workers” to plantations in the American South. McGraw-Hill Education, the publisher of the textbook, has since (76) that the term “workers” was a misnomer. The company’s chief executive also promised to revise the textbook so that its digital version as well as its next edition would more accurately describe the forced migration and enslavement of Africans. In the meantime, the company is also (77) to send stickers to cover the passage. But it will take more than that to fix the way slavery is taught in Texas textbooks. In 2010, the Texas Board of Education approved a social studies (78) that promote capitalism and Republican political philosophies. The curriculum guidelines prompted many concerns, including that new textbooks would (79) slavery as the cause of the Civil War. This fall, five million public school students in Texas began using the textbooks based on the new (80). And some of these books distort history not through word choices but through a tool we often think of as apolitical: grammar. In September, Bobby Finger of the website Jezebel obtained and published some excerpts from the new books, showing much of what is objectionable about their content. The books play down the horror of slavery and even seem to claim that it had an upside. This (81) took the form of a distinctive African-American culture, in which family was central, Christianity provided “hope”, folk tales expressed “joy” and (82) dances were important social events. But it is not only the substance of the passages that is a probe. It is also their form. The writers’ decisions about how to construct sentences, about what the subject of the sentence will be, about whether the verb will be active or passive, shape the message that slavery was not all that bad.

________

A TEXAS high school student and his mother recently called attention to a curious line in a geography textbook: a description of the Atlantic slave trade as bringing “millions of workers” to plantations in the American South. McGraw-Hill Education, the publisher of the textbook, has since (76) that the term “workers” was a misnomer. The company’s chief executive also promised to revise the textbook so that its digital version as well as its next edition would more accurately describe the forced migration and enslavement of Africans. In the meantime, the company is also (77) to send stickers to cover the passage. But it will take more than that to fix the way slavery is taught in Texas textbooks. In 2010, the Texas Board of Education approved a social studies (78) that promote capitalism and Republican political philosophies. The curriculum guidelines prompted many concerns, including that new textbooks would (79) slavery as the cause of the Civil War. This fall, five million public school students in Texas began using the textbooks based on the new (80). And some of these books distort history not through word choices but through a tool we often think of as apolitical: grammar. In September, Bobby Finger of the website Jezebel obtained and published some excerpts from the new books, showing much of what is objectionable about their content. The books play down the horror of slavery and even seem to claim that it had an upside. This (81) took the form of a distinctive African-American culture, in which family was central, Christianity provided “hope”, folk tales expressed “joy” and (82) dances were important social events. But it is not only the substance of the passages that is a probe. It is also their form. The writers’ decisions about how to construct sentences, about what the subject of the sentence will be, about whether the verb will be active or passive, shape the message that slavery was not all that bad.

__________

Directions (Q 83-94): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words are given <strong>bold</strong> to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

Things have got so bad between India and Pakistan that when they talk peace it looks like war. Their prime ministers were to address the 65th annual session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York and then meet on the sidelines.One day Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif made some illadvised,bellicose, Kashmir-related remarks against India in his speech at the UNGA. On the following day Prime Minister Manmohan Singh lashed out at Pakistan in his  speech. Before they met the next day Sharif reportedly called Singh a “village hag” (sic) off the record and put paid to whatever diplomatic gains he had counted on. After that, the meeting could not be one-on-one.Back home, the Indo-Pak media war was savage,sharpened by BJP leader Narendra Modi’s explosive reaction to the “village hag” remark. One channel pitted the notoriously visceral Pakistani politician Sheikh Rashid  Ahmed against Hindu and Muslim Indians, scoring brownie points while anchors lost their neutral cool. The New York meeting achieved nothing except a vague agreement on sorting out the recent Line of Control incidents through armies that hate each other. Pakistan’s reference to Indian terrorism in Balochistan was correct but not comparable to India’s globally accepted designation of Pakistan as the epicentre of terrorism,threatening the world, including the US, the EU, India,Russia and China, to say nothing of the Central Asian states, which cower before the Uzbek terrorists trained in Pakistan.Manmohan Singh’s reaction to an act of terrorism in Jammu on the eve of his meeting with Sharif was brave and statesmanlike, given the negative press he has at home and the populist atmospherics of the coming elections in India. He said he would not be deterred by terrorism while talking peace with Pakistan. While in New York, he met President Barack Obama – who could not find time for his Pakistani counterpart – and agreed to meet Sharif, with caveats against pinning high hopes on the meeting. Sharif’s reference to Kashmir at the UNGA was aimed more at audiences at home than at India. He also expressed Pakistan’s newfound plaint about the “unjust” global system created by a flawed UN and called, unrealistically,for reforms in the world body. At home, right-wing TV anchors and newspaper reporters were pleased that “he spoke softly but gave a harsh message”. Some were put off because he was not “fiery” enough, meaning that helacked in denunciatory “Chavizmo” or the parading of a poor man’s useless tumescence in global politics. Ace anchor Kamran Khan gave the familiar, but repeatedly defeated, spin to the Jammu attack on Indian police and military troops: “The attacks inflicted a heavy loss to the Indian army and police and also revived the assertion that no effort for peace between Pakistan and India could bear fruit until the Kashmir issue was resolved.” Sharif was toeing the Foreign Office line, which has traditionally toed the Pakistan army line, built on the frozen geopolitical position on India as a permanent enemy opposed to the very existence of Pakistan. The last bit is supported by the textbook brainwash in the schools of Pakistan, particularly Punjab, currently ruled by Sharif’s rightwing PML(N). His plaint about Kashmir not finding place on the roster of issues at the UN was purely for home consumption, because the 1972 Indo-Pak Simla Agreement had forever assigned it to bilateral dialogue. Pakistan had – wrongly – tried to move the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against India for the 1999 shooting down of a surveillance aircraft. The ICJ, while asserting that it had no jurisdiction over the matter, gratuitously advised Pakistan to abide by the 1972 change of status of all disputes.

Why did the issue of Kashmir not figure on the roster of issues at the UN?

Things have got so bad between India and Pakistan that when they talk peace it looks like war. Their prime ministers were to address the 65th annual session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York and then meet on the sidelines.One day Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif made some illadvised,bellicose, Kashmir-related remarks against India in his speech at the UNGA. On the following day Prime Minister Manmohan Singh lashed out at Pakistan in his  speech. Before they met the next day Sharif reportedly called Singh a “village hag” (sic) off the record and put paid to whatever diplomatic gains he had counted on. After that, the meeting could not be one-on-one.Back home, the Indo-Pak media war was savage,sharpened by BJP leader Narendra Modi’s explosive reaction to the “village hag” remark. One channel pitted the notoriously visceral Pakistani politician Sheikh Rashid  Ahmed against Hindu and Muslim Indians, scoring brownie points while anchors lost their neutral cool. The New York meeting achieved nothing except a vague agreement on sorting out the recent Line of Control incidents through armies that hate each other. Pakistan’s reference to Indian terrorism in Balochistan was correct but not comparable to India’s globally accepted designation of Pakistan as the epicentre of terrorism,threatening the world, including the US, the EU, India,Russia and China, to say nothing of the Central Asian states, which cower before the Uzbek terrorists trained in Pakistan.Manmohan Singh’s reaction to an act of terrorism in Jammu on the eve of his meeting with Sharif was brave and statesmanlike, given the negative press he has at home and the populist atmospherics of the coming elections in India. He said he would not be deterred by terrorism while talking peace with Pakistan. While in New York, he met President Barack Obama – who could not find time for his Pakistani counterpart – and agreed to meet Sharif, with caveats against pinning high hopes on the meeting. Sharif’s reference to Kashmir at the UNGA was aimed more at audiences at home than at India. He also expressed Pakistan’s newfound plaint about the “unjust” global system created by a flawed UN and called, unrealistically,for reforms in the world body. At home, right-wing TV anchors and newspaper reporters were pleased that “he spoke softly but gave a harsh message”. Some were put off because he was not “fiery” enough, meaning that helacked in denunciatory “Chavizmo” or the parading of a poor man’s useless tumescence in global politics. Ace anchor Kamran Khan gave the familiar, but repeatedly defeated, spin to the Jammu attack on Indian police and military troops: “The attacks inflicted a heavy loss to the Indian army and police and also revived the assertion that no effort for peace between Pakistan and India could bear fruit until the Kashmir issue was resolved.” Sharif was toeing the Foreign Office line, which has traditionally toed the Pakistan army line, built on the frozen geopolitical position on India as a permanent enemy opposed to the very existence of Pakistan. The last bit is supported by the textbook brainwash in the schools of Pakistan, particularly Punjab, currently ruled by Sharif’s rightwing PML(N). His plaint about Kashmir not finding place on the roster of issues at the UN was purely for home consumption, because the 1972 Indo-Pak Simla Agreement had forever assigned it to bilateral dialogue. Pakistan had – wrongly – tried to move the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against India for the 1999 shooting down of a surveillance aircraft. The ICJ, while asserting that it had no jurisdiction over the matter, gratuitously advised Pakistan to abide by the 1972 change of status of all disputes.

What results came out of the New York meeting between the two Prime Ministers?

Things have got so bad between India and Pakistan that when they talk peace it looks like war. Their prime ministers were to address the 65th annual session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York and then meet on the sidelines.One day Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif made some illadvised,bellicose, Kashmir-related remarks against India in his speech at the UNGA. On the following day Prime Minister Manmohan Singh lashed out at Pakistan in his  speech. Before they met the next day Sharif reportedly called Singh a “village hag” (sic) off the record and put paid to whatever diplomatic gains he had counted on. After that, the meeting could not be one-on-one.Back home, the Indo-Pak media war was savage,sharpened by BJP leader Narendra Modi’s explosive reaction to the “village hag” remark. One channel pitted the notoriously visceral Pakistani politician Sheikh Rashid  Ahmed against Hindu and Muslim Indians, scoring brownie points while anchors lost their neutral cool. The New York meeting achieved nothing except a vague agreement on sorting out the recent Line of Control incidents through armies that hate each other. Pakistan’s reference to Indian terrorism in Balochistan was correct but not comparable to India’s globally accepted designation of Pakistan as the epicentre of terrorism,threatening the world, including the US, the EU, India,Russia and China, to say nothing of the Central Asian states, which cower before the Uzbek terrorists trained in Pakistan.Manmohan Singh’s reaction to an act of terrorism in Jammu on the eve of his meeting with Sharif was brave and statesmanlike, given the negative press he has at home and the populist atmospherics of the coming elections in India. He said he would not be deterred by terrorism while talking peace with Pakistan. While in New York, he met President Barack Obama – who could not find time for his Pakistani counterpart – and agreed to meet Sharif, with caveats against pinning high hopes on the meeting. Sharif’s reference to Kashmir at the UNGA was aimed more at audiences at home than at India. He also expressed Pakistan’s newfound plaint about the “unjust” global system created by a flawed UN and called, unrealistically,for reforms in the world body. At home, right-wing TV anchors and newspaper reporters were pleased that “he spoke softly but gave a harsh message”. Some were put off because he was not “fiery” enough, meaning that helacked in denunciatory “Chavizmo” or the parading of a poor man’s useless tumescence in global politics. Ace anchor Kamran Khan gave the familiar, but repeatedly defeated, spin to the Jammu attack on Indian police and military troops: “The attacks inflicted a heavy loss to the Indian army and police and also revived the assertion that no effort for peace between Pakistan and India could bear fruit until the Kashmir issue was resolved.” Sharif was toeing the Foreign Office line, which has traditionally toed the Pakistan army line, built on the frozen geopolitical position on India as a permanent enemy opposed to the very existence of Pakistan. The last bit is supported by the textbook brainwash in the schools of Pakistan, particularly Punjab, currently ruled by Sharif’s rightwing PML(N). His plaint about Kashmir not finding place on the roster of issues at the UN was purely for home consumption, because the 1972 Indo-Pak Simla Agreement had forever assigned it to bilateral dialogue. Pakistan had – wrongly – tried to move the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against India for the 1999 shooting down of a surveillance aircraft. The ICJ, while asserting that it had no jurisdiction over the matter, gratuitously advised Pakistan to abide by the 1972 change of status of all disputes.

Why is it mentioned that when India and Pakistan talk peace, it looks like war?

(A) Because the Prime Ministers of both the countries made reproachful remarks against each other.

(B) Because both the countries are weak at their homes and they cannot help a war talk.

(C) Because both the countries tend to behave in a savage manner.

Things have got so bad between India and Pakistan that when they talk peace it looks like war. Their prime ministers were to address the 65th annual session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York and then meet on the sidelines.One day Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif made some illadvised,bellicose, Kashmir-related remarks against India in his speech at the UNGA. On the following day Prime Minister Manmohan Singh lashed out at Pakistan in his  speech. Before they met the next day Sharif reportedly called Singh a “village hag” (sic) off the record and put paid to whatever diplomatic gains he had counted on. After that, the meeting could not be one-on-one.Back home, the Indo-Pak media war was savage,sharpened by BJP leader Narendra Modi’s explosive reaction to the “village hag” remark. One channel pitted the notoriously visceral Pakistani politician Sheikh Rashid  Ahmed against Hindu and Muslim Indians, scoring brownie points while anchors lost their neutral cool. The New York meeting achieved nothing except a vague agreement on sorting out the recent Line of Control incidents through armies that hate each other. Pakistan’s reference to Indian terrorism in Balochistan was correct but not comparable to India’s globally accepted designation of Pakistan as the epicentre of terrorism,threatening the world, including the US, the EU, India,Russia and China, to say nothing of the Central Asian states, which cower before the Uzbek terrorists trained in Pakistan.Manmohan Singh’s reaction to an act of terrorism in Jammu on the eve of his meeting with Sharif was brave and statesmanlike, given the negative press he has at home and the populist atmospherics of the coming elections in India. He said he would not be deterred by terrorism while talking peace with Pakistan. While in New York, he met President Barack Obama – who could not find time for his Pakistani counterpart – and agreed to meet Sharif, with caveats against pinning high hopes on the meeting. Sharif’s reference to Kashmir at the UNGA was aimed more at audiences at home than at India. He also expressed Pakistan’s newfound plaint about the “unjust” global system created by a flawed UN and called, unrealistically,for reforms in the world body. At home, right-wing TV anchors and newspaper reporters were pleased that “he spoke softly but gave a harsh message”. Some were put off because he was not “fiery” enough, meaning that helacked in denunciatory “Chavizmo” or the parading of a poor man’s useless tumescence in global politics. Ace anchor Kamran Khan gave the familiar, but repeatedly defeated, spin to the Jammu attack on Indian police and military troops: “The attacks inflicted a heavy loss to the Indian army and police and also revived the assertion that no effort for peace between Pakistan and India could bear fruit until the Kashmir issue was resolved.” Sharif was toeing the Foreign Office line, which has traditionally toed the Pakistan army line, built on the frozen geopolitical position on India as a permanent enemy opposed to the very existence of Pakistan. The last bit is supported by the textbook brainwash in the schools of Pakistan, particularly Punjab, currently ruled by Sharif’s rightwing PML(N). His plaint about Kashmir not finding place on the roster of issues at the UN was purely for home consumption, because the 1972 Indo-Pak Simla Agreement had forever assigned it to bilateral dialogue. Pakistan had – wrongly – tried to move the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against India for the 1999 shooting down of a surveillance aircraft. The ICJ, while asserting that it had no jurisdiction over the matter, gratuitously advised Pakistan to abide by the 1972 change of status of all disputes.

Why did Nawaz Sharif call Manmohan Singh a ‘village hag’?

Things have got so bad between India and Pakistan that when they talk peace it looks like war. Their prime ministers were to address the 65th annual session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York and then meet on the sidelines.One day Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif made some illadvised,bellicose, Kashmir-related remarks against India in his speech at the UNGA. On the following day Prime Minister Manmohan Singh lashed out at Pakistan in his  speech. Before they met the next day Sharif reportedly called Singh a “village hag” (sic) off the record and put paid to whatever diplomatic gains he had counted on. After that, the meeting could not be one-on-one.Back home, the Indo-Pak media war was savage,sharpened by BJP leader Narendra Modi’s explosive reaction to the “village hag” remark. One channel pitted the notoriously visceral Pakistani politician Sheikh Rashid  Ahmed against Hindu and Muslim Indians, scoring brownie points while anchors lost their neutral cool. The New York meeting achieved nothing except a vague agreement on sorting out the recent Line of Control incidents through armies that hate each other. Pakistan’s reference to Indian terrorism in Balochistan was correct but not comparable to India’s globally accepted designation of Pakistan as the epicentre of terrorism,threatening the world, including the US, the EU, India,Russia and China, to say nothing of the Central Asian states, which cower before the Uzbek terrorists trained in Pakistan.Manmohan Singh’s reaction to an act of terrorism in Jammu on the eve of his meeting with Sharif was brave and statesmanlike, given the negative press he has at home and the populist atmospherics of the coming elections in India. He said he would not be deterred by terrorism while talking peace with Pakistan. While in New York, he met President Barack Obama – who could not find time for his Pakistani counterpart – and agreed to meet Sharif, with caveats against pinning high hopes on the meeting. Sharif’s reference to Kashmir at the UNGA was aimed more at audiences at home than at India. He also expressed Pakistan’s newfound plaint about the “unjust” global system created by a flawed UN and called, unrealistically,for reforms in the world body. At home, right-wing TV anchors and newspaper reporters were pleased that “he spoke softly but gave a harsh message”. Some were put off because he was not “fiery” enough, meaning that helacked in denunciatory “Chavizmo” or the parading of a poor man’s useless tumescence in global politics. Ace anchor Kamran Khan gave the familiar, but repeatedly defeated, spin to the Jammu attack on Indian police and military troops: “The attacks inflicted a heavy loss to the Indian army and police and also revived the assertion that no effort for peace between Pakistan and India could bear fruit until the Kashmir issue was resolved.” Sharif was toeing the Foreign Office line, which has traditionally toed the Pakistan army line, built on the frozen geopolitical position on India as a permanent enemy opposed to the very existence of Pakistan. The last bit is supported by the textbook brainwash in the schools of Pakistan, particularly Punjab, currently ruled by Sharif’s rightwing PML(N). His plaint about Kashmir not finding place on the roster of issues at the UN was purely for home consumption, because the 1972 Indo-Pak Simla Agreement had forever assigned it to bilateral dialogue. Pakistan had – wrongly – tried to move the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against India for the 1999 shooting down of a surveillance aircraft. The ICJ, while asserting that it had no jurisdiction over the matter, gratuitously advised Pakistan to abide by the 1972 change of status of all disputes.

What prompted the anchors of a media channel to lose their neutral cool?

(A) The pugnacious remarks made by Nawaz Sharif against India

(B) Because of the humiliating remarks by a Pakistani politician against Hindu and Muslim Indians

(C) Because of the rude tone of a prominent BJP leader

Things have got so bad between India and Pakistan that when they talk peace it looks like war. Their prime ministers were to address the 65th annual session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York and then meet on the sidelines.One day Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif made some illadvised,bellicose, Kashmir-related remarks against India in his speech at the UNGA. On the following day Prime Minister Manmohan Singh lashed out at Pakistan in his  speech. Before they met the next day Sharif reportedly called Singh a “village hag” (sic) off the record and put paid to whatever diplomatic gains he had counted on. After that, the meeting could not be one-on-one.Back home, the Indo-Pak media war was savage,sharpened by BJP leader Narendra Modi’s explosive reaction to the “village hag” remark. One channel pitted the notoriously visceral Pakistani politician Sheikh Rashid  Ahmed against Hindu and Muslim Indians, scoring brownie points while anchors lost their neutral cool. The New York meeting achieved nothing except a vague agreement on sorting out the recent Line of Control incidents through armies that hate each other. Pakistan’s reference to Indian terrorism in Balochistan was correct but not comparable to India’s globally accepted designation of Pakistan as the epicentre of terrorism,threatening the world, including the US, the EU, India,Russia and China, to say nothing of the Central Asian states, which cower before the Uzbek terrorists trained in Pakistan.Manmohan Singh’s reaction to an act of terrorism in Jammu on the eve of his meeting with Sharif was brave and statesmanlike, given the negative press he has at home and the populist atmospherics of the coming elections in India. He said he would not be deterred by terrorism while talking peace with Pakistan. While in New York, he met President Barack Obama – who could not find time for his Pakistani counterpart – and agreed to meet Sharif, with caveats against pinning high hopes on the meeting. Sharif’s reference to Kashmir at the UNGA was aimed more at audiences at home than at India. He also expressed Pakistan’s newfound plaint about the “unjust” global system created by a flawed UN and called, unrealistically,for reforms in the world body. At home, right-wing TV anchors and newspaper reporters were pleased that “he spoke softly but gave a harsh message”. Some were put off because he was not “fiery” enough, meaning that helacked in denunciatory “Chavizmo” or the parading of a poor man’s useless tumescence in global politics. Ace anchor Kamran Khan gave the familiar, but repeatedly defeated, spin to the Jammu attack on Indian police and military troops: “The attacks inflicted a heavy loss to the Indian army and police and also revived the assertion that no effort for peace between Pakistan and India could bear fruit until the Kashmir issue was resolved.” Sharif was toeing the Foreign Office line, which has traditionally toed the Pakistan army line, built on the frozen geopolitical position on India as a permanent enemy opposed to the very existence of Pakistan. The last bit is supported by the textbook brainwash in the schools of Pakistan, particularly Punjab, currently ruled by Sharif’s rightwing PML(N). His plaint about Kashmir not finding place on the roster of issues at the UN was purely for home consumption, because the 1972 Indo-Pak Simla Agreement had forever assigned it to bilateral dialogue. Pakistan had – wrongly – tried to move the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against India for the 1999 shooting down of a surveillance aircraft. The ICJ, while asserting that it had no jurisdiction over the matter, gratuitously advised Pakistan to abide by the 1972 change of status of all disputes.

Why did Manmohan Singh say before going to NewYork to meet President Barack Obama that he would not be deterred by terrorism while talking peace with Pakistan?

Things have got so bad between India and Pakistan that when they talk peace it looks like war. Their prime ministers were to address the 65th annual session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York and then meet on the sidelines.One day Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif made some illadvised,bellicose, Kashmir-related remarks against India in his speech at the UNGA. On the following day Prime Minister Manmohan Singh lashed out at Pakistan in his  speech. Before they met the next day Sharif reportedly called Singh a “village hag” (sic) off the record and put paid to whatever diplomatic gains he had counted on. After that, the meeting could not be one-on-one.Back home, the Indo-Pak media war was savage,sharpened by BJP leader Narendra Modi’s explosive reaction to the “village hag” remark. One channel pitted the notoriously visceral Pakistani politician Sheikh Rashid  Ahmed against Hindu and Muslim Indians, scoring brownie points while anchors lost their neutral cool. The New York meeting achieved nothing except a vague agreement on sorting out the recent Line of Control incidents through armies that hate each other. Pakistan’s reference to Indian terrorism in Balochistan was correct but not comparable to India’s globally accepted designation of Pakistan as the epicentre of terrorism,threatening the world, including the US, the EU, India,Russia and China, to say nothing of the Central Asian states, which cower before the Uzbek terrorists trained in Pakistan.Manmohan Singh’s reaction to an act of terrorism in Jammu on the eve of his meeting with Sharif was brave and statesmanlike, given the negative press he has at home and the populist atmospherics of the coming elections in India. He said he would not be deterred by terrorism while talking peace with Pakistan. While in New York, he met President Barack Obama – who could not find time for his Pakistani counterpart – and agreed to meet Sharif, with caveats against pinning high hopes on the meeting. Sharif’s reference to Kashmir at the UNGA was aimed more at audiences at home than at India. He also expressed Pakistan’s newfound plaint about the “unjust” global system created by a flawed UN and called, unrealistically,for reforms in the world body. At home, right-wing TV anchors and newspaper reporters were pleased that “he spoke softly but gave a harsh message”. Some were put off because he was not “fiery” enough, meaning that helacked in denunciatory “Chavizmo” or the parading of a poor man’s useless tumescence in global politics. Ace anchor Kamran Khan gave the familiar, but repeatedly defeated, spin to the Jammu attack on Indian police and military troops: “The attacks inflicted a heavy loss to the Indian army and police and also revived the assertion that no effort for peace between Pakistan and India could bear fruit until the Kashmir issue was resolved.” Sharif was toeing the Foreign Office line, which has traditionally toed the Pakistan army line, built on the frozen geopolitical position on India as a permanent enemy opposed to the very existence of Pakistan. The last bit is supported by the textbook brainwash in the schools of Pakistan, particularly Punjab, currently ruled by Sharif’s rightwing PML(N). His plaint about Kashmir not finding place on the roster of issues at the UN was purely for home consumption, because the 1972 Indo-Pak Simla Agreement had forever assigned it to bilateral dialogue. Pakistan had – wrongly – tried to move the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against India for the 1999 shooting down of a surveillance aircraft. The ICJ, while asserting that it had no jurisdiction over the matter, gratuitously advised Pakistan to abide by the 1972 change of status of all disputes.

Which of the following is false about Sharif’s address to the 65th annual session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York?

Things have got so bad between India and Pakistan that when they talk peace it looks like war. Their prime ministers were to address the 65th annual session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York and then meet on the sidelines.One day Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif made some illadvised,bellicose, Kashmir-related remarks against India in his speech at the UNGA. On the following day Prime Minister Manmohan Singh lashed out at Pakistan in his  speech. Before they met the next day Sharif reportedly called Singh a “village hag” (sic) off the record and put paid to whatever diplomatic gains he had counted on. After that, the meeting could not be one-on-one.Back home, the Indo-Pak media war was savage,sharpened by BJP leader Narendra Modi’s explosive reaction to the “village hag” remark. One channel pitted the notoriously visceral Pakistani politician Sheikh Rashid  Ahmed against Hindu and Muslim Indians, scoring brownie points while anchors lost their neutral cool. The New York meeting achieved nothing except a vague agreement on sorting out the recent Line of Control incidents through armies that hate each other. Pakistan’s reference to Indian terrorism in Balochistan was correct but not comparable to India’s globally accepted designation of Pakistan as the epicentre of terrorism,threatening the world, including the US, the EU, India,Russia and China, to say nothing of the Central Asian states, which cower before the Uzbek terrorists trained in Pakistan.Manmohan Singh’s reaction to an act of terrorism in Jammu on the eve of his meeting with Sharif was brave and statesmanlike, given the negative press he has at home and the populist atmospherics of the coming elections in India. He said he would not be deterred by terrorism while talking peace with Pakistan. While in New York, he met President Barack Obama – who could not find time for his Pakistani counterpart – and agreed to meet Sharif, with caveats against pinning high hopes on the meeting. Sharif’s reference to Kashmir at the UNGA was aimed more at audiences at home than at India. He also expressed Pakistan’s newfound plaint about the “unjust” global system created by a flawed UN and called, unrealistically,for reforms in the world body. At home, right-wing TV anchors and newspaper reporters were pleased that “he spoke softly but gave a harsh message”. Some were put off because he was not “fiery” enough, meaning that helacked in denunciatory “Chavizmo” or the parading of a poor man’s useless tumescence in global politics. Ace anchor Kamran Khan gave the familiar, but repeatedly defeated, spin to the Jammu attack on Indian police and military troops: “The attacks inflicted a heavy loss to the Indian army and police and also revived the assertion that no effort for peace between Pakistan and India could bear fruit until the Kashmir issue was resolved.” Sharif was toeing the Foreign Office line, which has traditionally toed the Pakistan army line, built on the frozen geopolitical position on India as a permanent enemy opposed to the very existence of Pakistan. The last bit is supported by the textbook brainwash in the schools of Pakistan, particularly Punjab, currently ruled by Sharif’s rightwing PML(N). His plaint about Kashmir not finding place on the roster of issues at the UN was purely for home consumption, because the 1972 Indo-Pak Simla Agreement had forever assigned it to bilateral dialogue. Pakistan had – wrongly – tried to move the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against India for the 1999 shooting down of a surveillance aircraft. The ICJ, while asserting that it had no jurisdiction over the matter, gratuitously advised Pakistan to abide by the 1972 change of status of all disputes.

Which of the following is true about the given passage?

Things have got so bad between India and Pakistan that when they talk peace it looks like war. Their prime ministers were to address the 65th annual session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York and then meet on the sidelines.One day Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif made some illadvised,bellicose, Kashmir-related remarks against India in his speech at the UNGA. On the following day Prime Minister Manmohan Singh lashed out at Pakistan in his  speech. Before they met the next day Sharif reportedly called Singh a “village hag” (sic) off the record and put paid to whatever diplomatic gains he had counted on. After that, the meeting could not be one-on-one.Back home, the Indo-Pak media war was savage,sharpened by BJP leader Narendra Modi’s explosive reaction to the “village hag” remark. One channel pitted the notoriously visceral Pakistani politician Sheikh Rashid  Ahmed against Hindu and Muslim Indians, scoring brownie points while anchors lost their neutral cool. The New York meeting achieved nothing except a vague agreement on sorting out the recent Line of Control incidents through armies that hate each other. Pakistan’s reference to Indian terrorism in Balochistan was correct but not comparable to India’s globally accepted designation of Pakistan as the epicentre of terrorism,threatening the world, including the US, the EU, India,Russia and China, to say nothing of the Central Asian states, which cower before the Uzbek terrorists trained in Pakistan.Manmohan Singh’s reaction to an act of terrorism in Jammu on the eve of his meeting with Sharif was brave and statesmanlike, given the negative press he has at home and the populist atmospherics of the coming elections in India. He said he would not be deterred by terrorism while talking peace with Pakistan. While in New York, he met President Barack Obama – who could not find time for his Pakistani counterpart – and agreed to meet Sharif, with caveats against pinning high hopes on the meeting. Sharif’s reference to Kashmir at the UNGA was aimed more at audiences at home than at India. He also expressed Pakistan’s newfound plaint about the “unjust” global system created by a flawed UN and called, unrealistically,for reforms in the world body. At home, right-wing TV anchors and newspaper reporters were pleased that “he spoke softly but gave a harsh message”. Some were put off because he was not “fiery” enough, meaning that helacked in denunciatory “Chavizmo” or the parading of a poor man’s useless tumescence in global politics. Ace anchor Kamran Khan gave the familiar, but repeatedly defeated, spin to the Jammu attack on Indian police and military troops: “The attacks inflicted a heavy loss to the Indian army and police and also revived the assertion that no effort for peace between Pakistan and India could bear fruit until the Kashmir issue was resolved.” Sharif was toeing the Foreign Office line, which has traditionally toed the Pakistan army line, built on the frozen geopolitical position on India as a permanent enemy opposed to the very existence of Pakistan. The last bit is supported by the textbook brainwash in the schools of Pakistan, particularly Punjab, currently ruled by Sharif’s rightwing PML(N). His plaint about Kashmir not finding place on the roster of issues at the UN was purely for home consumption, because the 1972 Indo-Pak Simla Agreement had forever assigned it to bilateral dialogue. Pakistan had – wrongly – tried to move the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against India for the 1999 shooting down of a surveillance aircraft. The ICJ, while asserting that it had no jurisdiction over the matter, gratuitously advised Pakistan to abide by the 1972 change of status of all disputes.

Directions (Q. 91-92): Choose the word/group of words which is MOST SIMILAR in meaning of the word/group of words printed in bold as used in the passage.

Caveat

Things have got so bad between India and Pakistan that when they talk peace it looks like war. Their prime ministers were to address the 65th annual session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York and then meet on the sidelines.One day Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif made some illadvised,bellicose, Kashmir-related remarks against India in his speech at the UNGA. On the following day Prime Minister Manmohan Singh lashed out at Pakistan in his  speech. Before they met the next day Sharif reportedly called Singh a “village hag” (sic) off the record and put paid to whatever diplomatic gains he had counted on. After that, the meeting could not be one-on-one.Back home, the Indo-Pak media war was savage,sharpened by BJP leader Narendra Modi’s explosive reaction to the “village hag” remark. One channel pitted the notoriously visceral Pakistani politician Sheikh Rashid  Ahmed against Hindu and Muslim Indians, scoring brownie points while anchors lost their neutral cool. The New York meeting achieved nothing except a vague agreement on sorting out the recent Line of Control incidents through armies that hate each other. Pakistan’s reference to Indian terrorism in Balochistan was correct but not comparable to India’s globally accepted designation of Pakistan as the epicentre of terrorism,threatening the world, including the US, the EU, India,Russia and China, to say nothing of the Central Asian states, which cower before the Uzbek terrorists trained in Pakistan.Manmohan Singh’s reaction to an act of terrorism in Jammu on the eve of his meeting with Sharif was brave and statesmanlike, given the negative press he has at home and the populist atmospherics of the coming elections in India. He said he would not be deterred by terrorism while talking peace with Pakistan. While in New York, he met President Barack Obama – who could not find time for his Pakistani counterpart – and agreed to meet Sharif, with caveats against pinning high hopes on the meeting. Sharif’s reference to Kashmir at the UNGA was aimed more at audiences at home than at India. He also expressed Pakistan’s newfound plaint about the “unjust” global system created by a flawed UN and called, unrealistically,for reforms in the world body. At home, right-wing TV anchors and newspaper reporters were pleased that “he spoke softly but gave a harsh message”. Some were put off because he was not “fiery” enough, meaning that helacked in denunciatory “Chavizmo” or the parading of a poor man’s useless tumescence in global politics. Ace anchor Kamran Khan gave the familiar, but repeatedly defeated, spin to the Jammu attack on Indian police and military troops: “The attacks inflicted a heavy loss to the Indian army and police and also revived the assertion that no effort for peace between Pakistan and India could bear fruit until the Kashmir issue was resolved.” Sharif was toeing the Foreign Office line, which has traditionally toed the Pakistan army line, built on the frozen geopolitical position on India as a permanent enemy opposed to the very existence of Pakistan. The last bit is supported by the textbook brainwash in the schools of Pakistan, particularly Punjab, currently ruled by Sharif’s rightwing PML(N). His plaint about Kashmir not finding place on the roster of issues at the UN was purely for home consumption, because the 1972 Indo-Pak Simla Agreement had forever assigned it to bilateral dialogue. Pakistan had – wrongly – tried to move the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against India for the 1999 shooting down of a surveillance aircraft. The ICJ, while asserting that it had no jurisdiction over the matter, gratuitously advised Pakistan to abide by the 1972 change of status of all disputes.

Denunciatory

Things have got so bad between India and Pakistan that when they talk peace it looks like war. Their prime ministers were to address the 65th annual session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York and then meet on the sidelines.One day Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif made some illadvised,bellicose, Kashmir-related remarks against India in his speech at the UNGA. On the following day Prime Minister Manmohan Singh lashed out at Pakistan in his  speech. Before they met the next day Sharif reportedly called Singh a “village hag” (sic) off the record and put paid to whatever diplomatic gains he had counted on. After that, the meeting could not be one-on-one.Back home, the Indo-Pak media war was savage,sharpened by BJP leader Narendra Modi’s explosive reaction to the “village hag” remark. One channel pitted the notoriously visceral Pakistani politician Sheikh Rashid  Ahmed against Hindu and Muslim Indians, scoring brownie points while anchors lost their neutral cool. The New York meeting achieved nothing except a vague agreement on sorting out the recent Line of Control incidents through armies that hate each other. Pakistan’s reference to Indian terrorism in Balochistan was correct but not comparable to India’s globally accepted designation of Pakistan as the epicentre of terrorism,threatening the world, including the US, the EU, India,Russia and China, to say nothing of the Central Asian states, which cower before the Uzbek terrorists trained in Pakistan.Manmohan Singh’s reaction to an act of terrorism in Jammu on the eve of his meeting with Sharif was brave and statesmanlike, given the negative press he has at home and the populist atmospherics of the coming elections in India. He said he would not be deterred by terrorism while talking peace with Pakistan. While in New York, he met President Barack Obama – who could not find time for his Pakistani counterpart – and agreed to meet Sharif, with caveats against pinning high hopes on the meeting. Sharif’s reference to Kashmir at the UNGA was aimed more at audiences at home than at India. He also expressed Pakistan’s newfound plaint about the “unjust” global system created by a flawed UN and called, unrealistically,for reforms in the world body. At home, right-wing TV anchors and newspaper reporters were pleased that “he spoke softly but gave a harsh message”. Some were put off because he was not “fiery” enough, meaning that helacked in denunciatory “Chavizmo” or the parading of a poor man’s useless tumescence in global politics. Ace anchor Kamran Khan gave the familiar, but repeatedly defeated, spin to the Jammu attack on Indian police and military troops: “The attacks inflicted a heavy loss to the Indian army and police and also revived the assertion that no effort for peace between Pakistan and India could bear fruit until the Kashmir issue was resolved.” Sharif was toeing the Foreign Office line, which has traditionally toed the Pakistan army line, built on the frozen geopolitical position on India as a permanent enemy opposed to the very existence of Pakistan. The last bit is supported by the textbook brainwash in the schools of Pakistan, particularly Punjab, currently ruled by Sharif’s rightwing PML(N). His plaint about Kashmir not finding place on the roster of issues at the UN was purely for home consumption, because the 1972 Indo-Pak Simla Agreement had forever assigned it to bilateral dialogue. Pakistan had – wrongly – tried to move the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against India for the 1999 shooting down of a surveillance aircraft. The ICJ, while asserting that it had no jurisdiction over the matter, gratuitously advised Pakistan to abide by the 1972 change of status of all disputes.

Directions (Q. 93-94): Choose the word/group of words which is MOST OPPOSITE in meaning of the word/group of words printed in bold as used in the passage.

Deterred

Things have got so bad between India and Pakistan that when they talk peace it looks like war. Their prime ministers were to address the 65th annual session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York and then meet on the sidelines.One day Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif made some illadvised,bellicose, Kashmir-related remarks against India in his speech at the UNGA. On the following day Prime Minister Manmohan Singh lashed out at Pakistan in his  speech. Before they met the next day Sharif reportedly called Singh a “village hag” (sic) off the record and put paid to whatever diplomatic gains he had counted on. After that, the meeting could not be one-on-one.Back home, the Indo-Pak media war was savage,sharpened by BJP leader Narendra Modi’s explosive reaction to the “village hag” remark. One channel pitted the notoriously visceral Pakistani politician Sheikh Rashid  Ahmed against Hindu and Muslim Indians, scoring brownie points while anchors lost their neutral cool. The New York meeting achieved nothing except a vague agreement on sorting out the recent Line of Control incidents through armies that hate each other. Pakistan’s reference to Indian terrorism in Balochistan was correct but not comparable to India’s globally accepted designation of Pakistan as the epicentre of terrorism,threatening the world, including the US, the EU, India,Russia and China, to say nothing of the Central Asian states, which cower before the Uzbek terrorists trained in Pakistan.Manmohan Singh’s reaction to an act of terrorism in Jammu on the eve of his meeting with Sharif was brave and statesmanlike, given the negative press he has at home and the populist atmospherics of the coming elections in India. He said he would not be deterred by terrorism while talking peace with Pakistan. While in New York, he met President Barack Obama – who could not find time for his Pakistani counterpart – and agreed to meet Sharif, with caveats against pinning high hopes on the meeting. Sharif’s reference to Kashmir at the UNGA was aimed more at audiences at home than at India. He also expressed Pakistan’s newfound plaint about the “unjust” global system created by a flawed UN and called, unrealistically,for reforms in the world body. At home, right-wing TV anchors and newspaper reporters were pleased that “he spoke softly but gave a harsh message”. Some were put off because he was not “fiery” enough, meaning that helacked in denunciatory “Chavizmo” or the parading of a poor man’s useless tumescence in global politics. Ace anchor Kamran Khan gave the familiar, but repeatedly defeated, spin to the Jammu attack on Indian police and military troops: “The attacks inflicted a heavy loss to the Indian army and police and also revived the assertion that no effort for peace between Pakistan and India could bear fruit until the Kashmir issue was resolved.” Sharif was toeing the Foreign Office line, which has traditionally toed the Pakistan army line, built on the frozen geopolitical position on India as a permanent enemy opposed to the very existence of Pakistan. The last bit is supported by the textbook brainwash in the schools of Pakistan, particularly Punjab, currently ruled by Sharif’s rightwing PML(N). His plaint about Kashmir not finding place on the roster of issues at the UN was purely for home consumption, because the 1972 Indo-Pak Simla Agreement had forever assigned it to bilateral dialogue. Pakistan had – wrongly – tried to move the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against India for the 1999 shooting down of a surveillance aircraft. The ICJ, while asserting that it had no jurisdiction over the matter, gratuitously advised Pakistan to abide by the 1972 change of status of all disputes.

Tumescence

Directions (Q. 95-97):  Find the error in the following sentence.

______________

________

_______

Directions (Q.98-100): Fill in the blanks following sentence.

Like the___________ part of an iceberg, much of what is really interesting in the capital is not______.

Human memory is not _________ especially on anciently happenings that smack of the__________.

Suzerainty is ________ control over a____________ state.